I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).
Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.
It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
Because it appears to be the only option on the table that a consensus can be built around. Also it can be rolled out by the Bitcoin Core team hence no change in governance.
I don't know what you are talking about. The plan seems to be somewhat vague.
First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so? What does that mean?
It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork. A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.
seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet?
So, how can core just agree? You want them to agree to a hardfork? You said that no change in governance.. ? Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no? change from 95% to 80%, right? that is a change?